And how many times did Sampras lose at Wimbledon before he won his first Wimbledon?

Rafa's winning percentage at RG is higher than Sampras' at Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

We're talking about dominance, whenever that dominance began does not matter, as it wasn't dominance yet before the dominance began. Nadal would need to win the Fo next year as well to have won it 7 times in 8 years like Sampras.

We're talking about dominance, whenever that dominance began does not matter, as it wasn't dominance yet before the dominance began. Nadal would need to win the Fo next year as well to have won it 7 times in 8 years like Sampras.

Click to expand...

Well that's your opinion. Sampras also started losing early rounds after 2000 Wimbledon.

I think Rafa is more dominant at RG. Until Rafa loses early, I consider him more dominant.

Sampras was one of the favorites in 1992 and lost to Ivanisevic in the semis and was the #1 seed in 2001 when he lost to 19 year old Federer. I dont think he was in his prime for either one, but those losses definitely still count comparing him to Nadal at Roland Garros.
It is not like Nadal in 2005 or 2006 was in his prime either.

As dominant as Nadal has been, you'd have to give it to Petros unbelievable WImbledon record he has. Fed ranks third out of those 3.

Another deciding factor could also be how close they have been pushed at their respective slams during their dominating period.

Fed has had to go through 3 5 setters, losing 1 of them
Rafa has had to go through only 1 5 setter
Sampras went through 4 5 setters

So to summarise, they have all lost at least once in their dominating periods. Fed had been pushed all the way 3 times, Sampras 4 times (but in 8 years an extra year than Fed) but Nadal has been pushed all the way only once. This means that players weren't even getting close to beating Nadal at RG apart from the one loss to Soderling.

But to me the amount of titles won is more important, that's why I give the edge to Sampras because it is harder to win 7 over 8 years than it is to win 6 over 7 years. If Rafa wins RG number 7 next year, then he will undoubtedly be the more dominant provided he isn't pushed to 5 sets in 3 of his matches, otherwise statistically he would be equal with Pete.

Your numbers chose Sampras. A select 8 year period for Sampras, discounting his losses in other years.

My numbers chose Nadal. A 7 year period, starting from his debut until now.

You have your criteria, and I have mine (which includes Rafa dropping fewer sets).

Click to expand...

it just seems logical that winning 7 slams is more dominant than winning 6. In that period of Sampras' dominance he also had a period where he had won 6 Wimbledons in 7 years, but he improved it by winning 7 in 8 years.

As dominant as Nadal has been, you'd have to give it to Petros unbelievable WImbledon record he has. Fed ranks third out of those 3.

Another deciding factor could also be how close they have been pushed at their respective slams during their dominating period.

Fed has had to go through 3 5 setters, losing 1 of them
Rafa has had to go through only 1 5 setter
Sampras went through 4 5 setters

So to summarise, they have all lost at least once in their dominating periods. Fed had been pushed all the way 3 times, Sampras 4 times (but in 8 years an extra year than Fed) but Nadal has been pushed all the way only once. This means that players weren't even getting close to beating Nadal at RG apart from the one loss to Soderling.

But to me the amount of titles won is more important, that's why I give the edge to Sampras because it is harder to win 7 over 8 years than it is to win 6 over 7 years. If Rafa wins RG number 7 next year, then he will undoubtedly be the more dominant provided he isn't pushed to 5 sets in 3 of his matches, otherwise statistically he would be equal with Pete.

it just seems logical that winning 7 slams is more dominant than winning 6. In that period of Sampras' dominance he also had a period where he had won 6 Wimbledons in 7 years, but he improved it by winning 7 in 8 years.

Click to expand...

I didn't say your criteria was illogical. Just a different opinion in regards to being most dominant.